A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 22, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) around 07:45, at the front of the 104 dong-ro of the above residence, “Many woman who demands a report to the effect that there was no bruc belongings belongings,” was reported by 112, and was dispatched to the site, to the head of the police station B of the Pakistan-gu Police Station, who called to the site, “I find out why he was deprived of the bank.”

I wish to read "h.h." and expressed C's face at one time as drinking.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers for handling 112 reported cases.

2. On December 22, 2015, at around 08:24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) expressed that: (b) the Defendant, at the office of the police station model-type and office of Pakistan, the above C wishesed to have the Defendant’s signature and seal on a letter of confirmation of arrest of flagrant offender and a written confirmation of the arrested suspect’s body; and (c) teared the confirmation and physical confirmation.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged public documents used by public offices to have their usefulness.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C or D;

1. 112 Report processing of cases, and work for the District Court B;

1. The tear can tear (which is recognized that the defendant was drinking at the time, but the crime of this case was committed by the police officer who was dispatched to 112 reported by the defendant, and the police officer asked him to find out the destroyed wall, bags, etc., which was lost to the police officer, while explaining the process of the case at the later time, the police officer assaulted the police officer while taking a bath within the police station, and damaged public documents, and it appears that the defendant's behavior before or after the crime was committed, and the suspect's statement in the suspect interrogation protocol prepared on the day of the crime is specific memory to some extent in light of the circumstances, the defendant did not have the ability or ability to make a decision on the change of things under the influence of alcohol at the time of each crime.